That’s the basic question, right?
Alright. What are we most concerned about? First, access. Big Gov Obamacare will no doubt increase access — to some sort of plan. By this I mean basic access to a basic health insurance plan that’s better than nothing. Although how many people need more access? The figure bandied about is 47 million, but of those, some are young people who choose not to have health care and some are people who could be on Medicare or Medicaid but just don’t realize it and fill out the paperwork. So you have to agree that “47 million uninsured” is a misnomer.
So Obamacare will increase access, I’ll give you that. But after that? I’ll tell you, I’m on a Medicaid program myself, and the number of participating doctors is small. I also have one doctor who has said he would continue to see me if I fell off insurance completely. I know of another doctor who used to accept my plan, but no longer does, and says he wishes he does, but the government simply won’t let him. That’s Medicaid. That’s government care. I said access to a plan, not a doctor. You think this will cure emergency room jam-ups? Are you kidding me? You’re going to have to wait longer under the “public option”.
I’ve also had Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and I know how easy those systems work compared to government-provided health care. But that is exactly because they’re private sector.
In the workplace, are more employers simply going to save on health care costs by insisting workers take Obamacare? I think so. Does overall care decline because of that? Absolutely. I don’t trust the government to run a damned C/T machine.
Tort reform, which is actually worthwhile, is off the table, as Howard Dean admitted, because of the trial lawyers. Tort reform would reduce restrictions on doctors treating you and lead to a decrease of batteries of unnecessary tests that are routinely administered to anyone complaining of a slight headache. Tort reform would clear up the jam in hospital rooms.